Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), rendered August 17, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01) in satisfaction of all charges brought against him. The factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleges that the arresting officer observed defendant in possession of a gravity knife and that the officer determined that it was a gravity knife because he observed it open with centrifugal force and lock automatically in place when opened.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient since it contains no allegation establishing that the knife was "released from [a] handle or sheath" or locked into place "by means of a button, spring, lever or other device" (Penal Law § 265.00 [5]), and since it makes no reference to the arresting officer's training or experience regarding gravity knives.

At the outset, we note that defendant's contention concerning the accusatory instrument's facial sufficiency is jurisdictional (see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). Thus, defendant's claim was not forfeited upon his plea of guilty (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010] People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 573 [2004]) and must be reviewed in spite of his failure to raise it in the Criminal Court (see Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133).

While the accusatory instrument was denominated an information, defendant, through his counsel, expressly waived his right to be prosecuted by information (see People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11 [1984] cf. People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009] People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429 [1974]). Therefore, the accusatory instrument's legal sufficiency must be evaluated under the standards which govern the legal sufficiency of a misdemeanor complaint (cf. People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009] People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]). A misdemeanor complaint is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge (CPL 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40 [4] [b] see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). "[A]n accusatory instrument must be given a reasonable, not overly technical reading" (Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 576; see also Casey, 95 NY2d at 360). When the accusatory instrument herein is given such a reading, the "fair implication" (Casey, 95 NY2d at 360) of its averments [*2]supports, or tends to support, the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (see People v Sans [Michael], 40 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51464[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). The arresting officer's conclusion that the object he observed in defendant's possession was, in fact, a gravity knife, was based on his observation that the knife opened with centrifugal force and locked automatically in place when opened, which establishes the facial sufficiency of the misdemeanor complaint (Penal Law § 265.00 [5] cf. Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 07, 2014